The Sun. — London, England, 1818-02-11 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, TuEsDay, Fes. 10. The I4OhD CHANCELLOR (being detained in Council) di4 not take his seat on the Woolsack nutil nearly five o'clock. The Ii ish Grand Jury Presentments Bill was read the third time and passed. Mr. MAITLAND, from the East India Directors, t;seutcd at the Bar att Account of the - Grants, Pensions, and Allowances, made by that Body in the coarse of the last year. Mr. IZIPPoN, trout the Bank of Bogland, pre EL:i;Cd all Account Of the Receipts and Disburse. tnei;ts of the C,mortisdoners for the Reduction tlie National Debt, for the year ending, stio Ja• y ISIS; both which,doesintents were laid upon the table. The Lola) . CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the business of the Court of Chancery to morrow being of that nature which would requirw . his attendance, he should be unable to assist in heai-iug Appeali, but he would propose that one day next %yea should,' in consequence, be appro priated for that put pose —Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS. A petition was presented front the Writers to tl►e Si4uct in Scotland. s were resented from the East Inuit* Comp Any, contHitiing ;hat C.,mp;►ny's• Ilcsoin tions respecting Auntiities, &c.—Ordered to lie OU he Table. Accounts from the Bank, of sums expended by the Cntumissioners 1w the National D,bt, dining the hi,,t ycar, were preseuted.—Ordercd to lie on the Table. Mr. BABINGTON obtained leave to bring in a 13i11 for providing accommodation fur the Judges of Assizes and the Records of the county of Lei ster. CI'T'Y DEBTORS' PRISON. Sir W. CURTIS moved for leave to bring in a Bill to enlarge the powers to raise sums of Money for the building of a Nev Jai! for Debtors in the city ( -4 London. - Mr. H. SIJMNER wished the Honourable Baro no to state the reasons that induced application to hr wade for this Bill—every County and City ought to be at the expense of their own isuns. Sir W. CURTIS replied, that the .partienlars were set forth in the Petition, which had been rtierred to it Committee, and which Committee 1,.,,1 recommended the Bin. Mr. BENNET complained of the edifice as far as it had proceeded : it was an i!1-arranged anti clumsy building. It was quite right that the debt incurred should be paid ; but he wished the City of London to be just before they were generous— he should like to see thew pay their debts before they gave away swords and snuff-boxes to support some Minister of the day He should like to see • what were the hinds of the City, what were their comings-in ; but at ail events, the state of their Prisons was disgraceful to them. They did no thing till they were goaded to • it—except indeed thrir flourishes to Hatter men in power ; and the wr: tcheti state of the Borough Compter, in par -ticular, was a proof of their backwardness to take - becoming care of their Prisons. 'Sir ,1, - .:rfAn , defended the motion, observing, -tint the expenditure had exceeded the estimate. - As to The expenses incurred by the City in enter taining th e lib era tors of Europe (the amount for - •the repast being 40,000/ ) he did not envy the fee!iogs oithe Him. Member (Mr. Bennet) if be grudged such a sum on such an occasion. Mr H Sum xstt should move, as an.amendment, that the motion be adjourned to the last day for receiving private Bills, to enable the House to ascertain what use the City had made of the mo ney already ohtained on account or the Prison. Mr. Alderman Woon said the City had done all in their power to enlarge their Prisons, as he mrintained the present condition of them proved. He added, greater expenses had been gone to in conseqncnce of a recomMendation of a Committee of that House ; and 'when more money was re (pired to carry into effect the suggestions of the Comntittee, it was rather hard thus to complain. Sir W. Cu RT is observed, that the City Antho rities were re : Bly to give the amplest explanation —the City desired to do nothing in a corner—but the Committee on the Bill would afford fit oppor tunity to institute the inquiry requited by some. Mr. TnoRNToN was understood to support the ati: , ..nrh»ent. _ _ Mt. ii. SUMNCR undertook to withdraw his a rn eudin!!rit , if the Hon. Member would present the U:v's Accurate. ao 6 wer.—The original Motion was then agreed to without any diyisLon. Petitions were presented from Durham and five: pool against the use of Children to sweep Cl,:muies. A Petition %vas presented from Edinburgh for a 33111 to incorporate a Company to light that city with Gas.—ltetcrred to a Committee. Sir J. MACINToti moved for Accounts of the Soots received in Droits of the Crown and of the Adwiralry since the Ist FA. 18i7, and for a sum mary Accwilt of siniilar Sums and their applica tiGit since 1793 to the present time.—Ordered. 1L Nip TOKENS, Mr. CuMEN was unders«ni to ask what mea sure woal be adopted to facilitate the calling-in or the Bank Tokens The .CHANCELLQE of the EXCHEQUER conceived that there was no obligation on the Government to take any measure to call in the Bank Tokens, as they were to be recalled, under an existing Act of Parliament, in the month of March next. He not think any more inconvenience would occu• to the pohlic than when the Bank bad withdraw.i from cir_tdation the Dollars which it had issued, or the Country Batiks their Silver Tokens. Tie 13 , 0 k was fully able to issue legal coin for any oant of its Tokens sent back Cuit‘vs . :st itr , •enteil 1 Petition front the lamer, and intabit,ints'of Workington, in C.un b,ilanti, against the Salt Dtty.—Laid on the Inbie. MANUFACTURERS. Sir I? ouF PT 111. - .1! 3 petition from a number tuid o;:s'itaes dune more for their country in point of lahour than any other class of individuals. They had come to him in an unex pected manner, and stated, that they %vere aware that if they gained their object, it would be at tended with a reduction of wages; but they were . wiling tO'submit to any privation Lather than continue to he oppressed by excessive labour. They complained that they were made to work in the looms not less tiny) 14 or 15 hours a day ; that they could undergo mach confinement, but that there was a period when that excessive la bour proved too oppressive to be supported by the IlinnilicqStitution. When so much was done to in ercace the prosperity of our trade, he thought that the House should not shrink fromextending irs pro tection to those by whom the maimfacturers that terl that trade was cart led on. He had brought in a Bill, in lot flier years, for the protection - of Apprentices, and it had produced beneficial re - - sults ; but its provisions were now evaded by ;he practice of raking the children of paupers withotit any iudentOres or regulations. It was the ditty of the House to protect those children who had no other protectors than its Members. The Pctitiou was then read. It teas signed by about 6,000 labourers above 16 years of age, in the spinning manufactories in Manchester and its neighbotirhood. It stated that they ‘vorked from 14 to 15 hours a day, in rooms badly ventilated and overheated ; and after complaining of the con dition of young children connected with them by the dearest ties, prayed that though the inter ference of the House their labour mi,ht be con fined to 10 hours a day, alloLving them halt an hour for breakfast, and one hour for dinuer. Mr. CuRwEN, having been a Member of the Committee appointed II) inquire into the State of Manufactures, could not retrain front saying, that as far as - the evidence produced before the Com mittee went, it supported a case very ditfyrent from that made by the Honourable Baronet.— Had not the children, who were represented as being unprotected, parents and relations ut their own ? He had visited them himself, and had never seen an equal number of children in better health. He did not conceive it proper for Parlia ment to interfere by any regulations between pa rents and their children. Mr. GortooN had also been a Member of the Committee alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman, and the effect produced upon his mind by the evi _ dence . was totally different. It had been proved to the Committee, that the labourers worked from six in the morning till eight in the evening ; that they were not more than lour minutes at dinner, and that they bad no time for breakfast, or in the evening, but what they could snatch when going fro►n one room to another; and yet the lion. Member could see no inhumanity in their treat ment ! Nay, children were overloaded with work at the early age of six years ! The lion. Gent. had said that he would not interfere between parents and their children ; but the parents themselveswere now praying for that interference. '[he state of those children was such, that in Sunday Schools which contained 3 or 400 boys, those who worked in . - the cotton manufactures had been frequently dis tinguished from the rest by their appearance alone. He thought the Son. Baronet entitled to the thanks of the House for his interference. Having made a large fortune by the exertions of persons in the situation of (.hose whom. he Wished to re lieve, it was the best return he email make them to bring another measure before Patliament. Mr. Prinms contended, that not only children working in cotton manufactories could not be known from others by their appearance, but that many cow plain tswhich bad been rep. e,ent ed-as aris ing from excessive labour, ‘vere found, on examin ation, to have proceeded front very ditfetent causes. Ile thought no good would arise from the conti nuance of Committees, but from the appointment of a Special Commission, which would go to the country, and investigate the real merits of the case. He alluded to the state in which labourers were placed at the time when the Hon. Baronet himself was engaged in manufacturing concerns. It was not under that Hon. !baronet's • Bill that fact onies . had . improved, but throtigh a tendency to progressive improvement, which had operated for many years. The House should not be called to legislate on single cases. Air. Wm. SMITH called his Honourable Friend to order. He entered into the subject as if there were a motion before the House to go into a Committee. Mr. Pm LLI I'S had only answered the observa- tions of others, whom it would have been more proper to call to order, it any one had at all been disorderly.' Sir ROBERT PEEL was unwilling to interrupt the Hon. Gentleman in his f•-peeeit, but neverthe less conceived that he travelled out of his subject to endeavour to affect his (Sir It. Peel's) charac ter. When the abuses existing in manufactories had been investigated, he confessed that his own establimbnient hid not been found better than the rest. It was then that be perceived he could not have an eye at every thing, and that relief could only be granted by Parliament. At that time also it had appeared that the Honourable Gentleman opposite had made as free with the labour of the children as the other manufacturers. Air. DOUGLAS stated, that he had visited the children of his Honourable Friend's Manufactory (Alr.Phillips's), and that they were in the best health, and as gay as any children he .had ever behel►l. Mr. WM. SMITH was authorised to say, that the Petition presented by the lion. Baronet arose entirely out of the spontaneous desire of the.party themselves. There were at Manchester from 20 to 30,000 persons employed iii the, cotton ►nanu factories, and out of these 5995, all above 16 years of age, had signed this Petition, having all been previously made acquainted with its contents, and being aware that the attainment of its object would be attended with a reduction of their wages. Mr. SHAW had visited the factory of the Hon. Member on the other side of the House (Mr. Phillips), and had never seen, or wished to see, a more healthy and contented body of people than he had witnesst•d there. He trusted that no Men►- her would make up his mind on the present sub ject without having satisfactory evidence, and even personal inspection. The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table. Mr. B2MMET gave notice, that on Thursday next he should move that the Petition from Man chester, presented the niFht before, he referred to the Secret Cominittee. He then presented two Petitions, one front the county of Dinham, and the other from Liverpool. The first against the tnplvment of, Climbing, Boys, and the. latter for Iteturm. They. were ordered to lie on the tattle: Mr. Alderman Woon gave notice, that on . Wed nesdav-t he 18th instant, he. should !wive that a Committee be appointed to view Newgate and the other prisons in the City, and . repot t upon 'the subjecL STATE TRIALS IN SCOTLAND. Lord A. II AMIt.TONT, in rising . pursuant to his notice,- felt that the subject which he had under taken to bliog forward was one of the most im portant that had ever come before the House. It was 'the more important as it referred to the conduct of the ,Later Officers Of the Crown in Scotland,, and the Court of Justiciary io that rituntry. This very statement ini;eht create •a double prejudice against his bringing forteard such a subject. • It made theqoestion appear to he a leg-al one, which might induce a b e lief t h a t it would have been more properly taken sip by a professional onto, as met ey a professional case, though it might have been in much abler hands. The other point likely to create a prejudice against him, was his appearing to call neon the House tointet fere with the proceedings of Courts of Justice, a subject on which the des pest and the best- founded jealousy had always existed : but this he - was not thinking of doiag in the remotest tnauner. He wished merely to take cogoizaece of what appeared on their own ICCords. The case which he shook: submit to the u ise would in volve something approaching to subornation to perjory, with the intended object of prodociug an illegal conviction. His motion should be for a copy of the records of those proceedings. He would have little more to soburit than what those records would show.: For how could the proceed ings of a Law Court be' better explained than by its own records-?. - He should now revert to what hail LeAsed lathe House on• ,a dormer occa sion, when the Lord Advocate stated the popula tion ofalie. country. about GtlasgOtv - :fo. he so con taminated,- that' 300 - or 404 individuals were im plicated in an oath; which in an uncallaefor man ner he submitted to the House:- He (Lord A. H.) did not deny that 'a seditious disposition might have existed, but was it possikele not to- believe that the statetitent of the Learned. :Lord had been most extravagantiefroto what hadssince transpired, and from his own conduct ? If there- was a duty which shOol4)re performed more scropitlOusly than another';.' ir shoUld, be`.l.4at, every .per§on brought to the tribunaVof.his'Ourieri'should*liave a fair, just, - and'vimpartial trial:e•iteavis this_. which, he now complained, the individnatiried. in Scotland had not. In saying that, healiaciailmed any con cern with the guilt or innocence . of the person in 1 question.' .Whether gnilty ivocent, he was equally entitled to a fair trial. ptit'tlie,Learned Lord's exaggerated statement in tli.e - House had been most likely tie prejudice* andlirifinence the minds, not only of persons here:but' (if ibbse who would serve on th4.Jury in Scotland::-The system adopted by Government, of introducing spies and informers at meetings on all oceaSiOns, had also led to considerable Mischief.. krOm their past re cords would now state what the Officers of the CrOavn in Scotian. dure' arid that instead of ex ecutino. their duty fairly, they had endeavoured. to convict the only person put On his trial, o n. what he would have little hesitation to call sub-! (natation to perjury. In doing this he meant no personalities. fie only wi,lied to look at the con duct o f those Officers in their poblic - character, and did not mean to say that either the Learned Lord, or any of his colleagues, had wished to irfdOce the committal of - perjury. He should now* explain' one thing to those who were not, accustomed to the manner in which trials were carried oil. in Scotland. The commencement of a trial differed widely from rite saute proceeding in En gland. It began by what was called the purgation of witnesses. The Court asked every witness three questions ; first : " Have you any malice or ill evill against the panne! at the bar ?" If time wit ness answers yes, the Court has still the power-to consider on what ground he rests his answer, and whether it disqualifies his testimony ftom being received. The second question was : " Has any body taught or- instructed you what to say as a witness ?"—He was IlOt asked whether he had been taught to speak true or false, but whether he 'had received any instructions at all. If he had, then it was to be apprehended the Court would, on that account, set him aside. The third ques tion was : t" Have you received any reward, or promise of reward; for giving evidence ?" It was not said for =giving - Jake evidence, but has a re ward been :; promised you for giving evidence at all ?—lf the witness could not answer that ques tion, then he world stand disqualified. He should now proceedto the evidence, as offered in Court, to makeeottt his charge. When John Campbell was called as a Witness, the Counsel for the pannel objected to hint, on the ground that they had not been permitted to have access to hint, having been refused -leave by the Lord Advocate, to whom they had. applied. The objection however was over-ruled, on the-ground that the application for leave 'ought to have beeo•made to the Court, and not to ;he Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate had refused to grant permission because lie said he thought it his duty to prevent all access to the winless on the part of the pannel for fear of tam pering. The Learned Lord had said so, when the evidence of that witness, from the moment be had been in the hands of the officers of the Crown, exhibited a continued tissue of proofs of the most palpable tampering. How could the Learned Lord give that as his reason, when he must have known at the very time that the officers of the Crown had had continual access to Campbell for the purpose of tampering with him On the 3d oath being put to him, whether he had received any reward or any promise of reward for giving evidence; to the surprise of the whole Court he answered, '' that he had." Ott that answer he should ground his present motion ; and it would be for the House to judge of the tampering used, and of the propriety of producing a witness so tampered with, to convict illegally the pannel at the hear. It was not mutt! in the trials in Scotland to take down the whole of the evidence, but in this instance it was done, and principally on ac count of Campbell's answer., He should read vs' rious passages from this . o the House, to pixie the correctness of what/he had advanced. V i e Noble Lord then read,?e . veral arts of the evi ' donee, to the following effect :—After Camp bell had been taken anti brought to gaol,. he was left p alone with 111 - r. Salmon, dielcurator olio told him—" John, you, perhaps, did not know that I knew so 'Much at- your affair.- and that you took the oath at Laoark." Campbell denied having taken the oath, when Mr. Sa l " mon shewed him some maimscript notes, and said , " John, I assure you that I have six Men :'w l)° , will swear that you took Ole oatk, and you be hanged as sore as you are alive." WkI• 1113 ( a threat to be made to a man who was aftertvot''f to he brought forward as a witness ) On another' occasion Salnicot said, " it will do you no to persist in denying, but if von follow the other course, it may do you touch good." Camp l ' dl asked how ; and was answered, by Salmon, t hat 1 time Lord Advocate was at Glasgow, and wow" come' mulct any obligation to him that he pleas e' Campbell was then removed to Editibtirgb, an te newsceM lie opem.d. A r. 110 m nme Dromo a came to hint, and told him that his name was in the list of ‘vitnes , es, and that the :nue was ° P. rived when he must Say whether he would be oll e or not. Campbell then said that he must elta" l4l9 ,- his name, if he appeared as a witot ss, axed cl eat he could not afterwards live at Glasgow. I .W . Drummond answered—" We have been thitiltia of a plan to mite to Lord Si,inoutli and get Yi°4`l, in the Exc:se."—And this was Salk; to a m an 0 "; --- was liable to be tried, with six ►witnesses r e4 :l to swear aga . osi . horn, and who rias certaio 44." e ' ing banged ! Ile was- alter warsrs Lt ., : alone bevel ral tittles with Mr. Home Drunimowl, who him " hat be wautyd to have," and told 101 :1: that " it he would give such evidence as wool" please the Lord Advocate, lie should nei.lmer tried nor called upon ems a witness." He was fiuc prepared to say that the whole of this most 01 ' fair proceeding was the woyk of Mr. Home Difi n " mond or of the Lord Advocate, but till it was ti s '" claimed by the Learned Lord, it must be CO' sl 7, tiered as his own. It was possible that the Advocate should say, all this is true, Drummond did it, and tampered with Cain without my having any thing to do With it 3 that ease, all he (Lord A. H.) wanted , "'as to find the guilty person, and it would be for the House to ascertain . the degree pt his guilt. T I , I next time Mr. Drummond sew Campbell, h Wle ' him, " We don't know what to do for you ; we all wish to favour you ;" and a few days after , li e told him that would be the last time lie should" be asked. .Campheil then inquired if Lord Sidinoo tt ; bad bee n written to, and Mr. Drummond replie‘" that he had not, as Campbell had been trod et ' stood to have refused the offer. The _next " 4... mination was in presence of SirWilliaM Rsae , tb e Sheriff of Edinburgh.' When :the deposition taken before this Magistrate, on its being stat e " under what .circurnstances .the deposition ora l made, he refused to have it signed. on th e ground, that if what the witness stated specting the offers made to him . were true, t deposition would be a perjury. Thus; if it 10 4 not been fin' Sir William Rae, who ill"' act : ' ed most conscientiously : , ceordina t o his dt“ . l" . • the perjury wo u ld h ave been .corountted. -1.144 Noble Lord then read various other parts ot Record, of less interest, as tl;cv )(late," to the treatment which Cam;;:bell received . dia jt, g his confinement—his having been furnished shoes by - Ot der of Captain Silib•ald, the fiovern° of the Gaol—his wife being sent for - trOin Lila' gow, &c. He made - arse of the. Record, vo.t Merely as the anthOrity for his-statement, a containing the vet y statement . which he e 42 to foutahis-case. He recollected that time Awl" nr.V•General, not long ago, in the coarse o f ll. dei):4te respecting any intercourse lo : tweet' I - 1 1 LaW Officers of the Crown toad witn e sses , 41se ` this expression—" God tot hidthat I si n old fete with -any, witness." Uniortunately time Trie sent case seemed to show that this (141 ot sel to be the system pursued by the Law ° the Crown in Scotland. The system acted 01 :, there was that of employing spies and tainpe - ri"'; with witnesses. If any of• those spies &nuance,' an individual, that individual was instantly i“ 4 rested—carried to jail—to a secret jail----ev en Magistrates were prevented from having a ccess "" him. Then the evidences to he produced in) tr trial of this individual were tampered with. he t would ask what was the chance of anjudividot3 escaping who was arrested and brought to trial ill this way ? - The other great point of his elsog i . was, that the acts amounted to subornatioo c.m-* perjury. He would ask, whether, if time res" ll of the trial had been the .conviction of Al`Ki ol4 upon time evidence of Campbell, thus tutored lor the occasion ; and if the conviction had hero f t) r . lowed•up by execution or transportation„ and had then come out what the practices of Al f- Home Drummond had been, and how that viction had been procured, what could he though t of the state of the country ? M`Kinlay was p" t to the bar charged with an attempt to ove l '`"' l or bring into contempt the Laws and Governmo ot of the Country. But he would ask whether the proceeding) adopted by those who had p ut ArKirdily upon his trial were not calculate much more palpably and violently to overturn the Laws, and bring into contempt the Administra tion of Justice. There was only one other point on which he would trouble the House, and tha t related to the nature of the evidence which - he . would ask to have produced. His motion woo° be for a copy of the Record of the Ti lab ; ere' cause that was evidence of the very highest h it ' as to the facts, and therefore hesuppoted it '. 53i that by which the Law Officers of the Crown ill Scotland %you'd wish to be tried, for it might be said to be of their own manufacture. He held ic to be undeniable that • the Lord Advocate te"i l Y did mean to call Campbell as a witness upon t he trial. There was a passage in Professor HUl lie.s Treatise upon the Critnioal Law of Scotland which clearly proved that to call such a witile 7 ' s was an offence for which a magistrate was ind o " able. It was quite clear that to use the testimony of such a witness would, be to support a csuse Ily perjury, for before the estit»ony of the Man ‘ O, " be received, he must have Sworn tha! he. ‘s . '' a competent witness, a sta:emcnt whici he cuffed (1] if I